Boards

I was having a discussion on Saturday night about the relevance of the Royals to the British youth and would there come a day that the youth of today, when they become the adults of tomorrow, will they call for the Royals to no longer 'exist' so to speak.

Now without sounding like a troll/being anti-british, when I look at the Royals in relation to the youth of the UK there is definitely a distinct lack of relatability. Considering that currently the idea of old white money seems to the unfavourable thing now-a-days, having a family which represents all of that surely will soon call for a rethink? Also, do you think there will ever be a mixed race marriage into the Royals? How would the British react if let's say Harry decided to marry a non-white woman?

The recent photo scandals and stuff with the younger royals - that kind of thing is only going to increase in future. That in itself won't finish them off, but I think that it'll reinforce in people's minds that the royal family was never supposed to exist in the 21st century. Maybe.

Republicanism will probably increase as the years go on but I think there will always be a loyal and vocal support for the Royals. The Royal Wedding and Jubilee the last couple of years have shown how many people still love them

Fair enough they are a tourist attraction, but it's not like the years gone by when the Royals were like a form of government - they made the be all and end all decisions. What power do they have now? They go on state visits and then hang about in their fancy houses etc...but I don't see how a bunch of rich white people parading around in hats and gloves makes any real significant difference?

The appeal of the Royal Family, is their role as a form of 'living history'. They're not meant to represent the future, or maybe even the present, but a history. A history that is both constant and ever evolving simultaneously. They are, basically, the most important thread connecting Britain's history and heritage through the rise and fall of empires, the changing of Governments, wars, recssions, good times and bad. Of course there are many people that can trace their family histories back through the same history and span of time, but no other family has been so central to it all or had such a perfect ringside seat.

They're not relevance, and they no longer have the power to make any significant difference, but then i'd argue that's not what they're there for.

Fair enough they are a tourist attraction, but it's not like the years gone by when the Royals were like a form of government - they made the be all and end all decisions. What power do they have now? They go on state visits and then hang about in their fancy houses etc...but I don't see how a bunch of rich white people parading around in hats and gloves makes any real significant difference?

They're nto a tourist attraction. Who comes to London to see the queen? No-one. they're not even in the top 10 most listed attractions for tourists. The buildings, yes. The royal family themselves? No.

EVEN if someone did say they came to see the queen, how much can you say that it generated for the UK? People come for many reasons, saying the royal family is a tourist attraction is a complete lie.

Also, France has more tourism than us and they had the sense to kill their lot.

however doesn't it mean that as soon as the Queen steps down and Charles (or Will) comes in, all our money will have to change? The cost implications alone would make me question their relevance. Also, to the generation below us the idea of Will being king is a bit of a 'so what' isn't it?

In so far as I think your premise is slightly wrong. Is it the 'job' of the royal family to be relevant? And even then, relevant to what? Of course they can fail at meeting certain criteria if the criteria are incorrect.

Rendering them disposable, and little more than a living version of Marianne, Uncle Sam, or, hey, John Bull* himself. And the benefit of those is that they don't prop up the fundamentally unjust basis for a nation (i.e. inheritance and birthright).

*other UK constituent country symbols are available. And/or Britannia, if you're so inclined.

Posting in this thread is genuinely the most thought and effort I've ever invested in the Royal Family and all I've learnt is that I still don't care either way. They've got me right where they want me.

which is a big issue, my main problem with the royal family is for the entire nation to say one family is better than another. We have to bow (literally and metaphorically) to these people. We're equal, not the scum then some deity-approved family. Load of old cock.

i think we'll get rid of them eventually - but probably not for another 50 - 60 years at least, and anything could happen in that time to strengthen or weaken their position.

personally i quite like having them, i like having a head of state who isn't really affiliated with a political party, and i agree with CGs historical thread point. I'd be totally up for drastically stripping back their expenses and i'm not going to be having a cry when they do finally fuck off, but overall i'm fairly keen.

does a cost exercise and measures the added benefit to tourism and taxes from that (by there being a monach to accompany the pageantry) and se if it is worth it financially against the civil list.

The thing is that the Palaces and castles and residences will still have bills for upkeep. Will the guards still be expected to parade around in redcoats and bearskins? will they withdraw a lot of pomp from London, in which case what would distinguish London as a tourist destination from many others? Still some things, sure, but some foreign tourists really love that stuff.

Perhaps instead Parliament will demand 'value for money' from the monarchy.

I dont think that relevance to the <youth of today> has anything to do with the monarchy (you may have noticed that to be true in film archives of punk)